It would be too awkward for me to continue a discussion with someone knowing that they’ve humbled them, and I have the upper hand because they’re always on the edge of being removed.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.

Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.

Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

and now edited without edit marks:

Quote

Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions. I am not trying to humiliate anyone. I’m simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can argue in good faith if you deny the LNC.

17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.

Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.

Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

and now edited without edit marks:

Quote

Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions. I am not trying to humiliate anyone. I’m simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can argue in good faith if you deny the LNC.

And with a miraculously well placed typo in the final phrase.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.

Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

It's a standard creationist tactic - the appeal to common sense. Common sense tells us that things must be either waves or particles, all moving objects come to a halt, all species were separately created a couple of millenia ago, and the universe is a few thousand miles across with a flat, stationary earth at its centre.

Barry, if you're reading this (and I know you are): if common sense is so reliable, why do science?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

17Barry ArringtonFebruary 14, 2012 at 4:06 pm Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions.

Not that you'll ever examine the foundations of your particular "meaning, truth and logic", Barry.

and now edited without edit marks:

Quote

Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions. I am not trying to humiliate anyone. I’m simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can argue in good faith if you deny the LNC.

And with a miraculously well placed typo in the final phrase.

Can you be able to argue in good faith if you deny the LNC, and at the same time not be able to argue in good faith if you deny the LNC?

Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions. I am not trying to humiliate anyone. I’m simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can argue in good faith if you deny the LNC.

Actually, Barry is telling a bald faced lie here. His interest is not to determine who is arguing in bad faith by denying the LNC. If that was his interest, he never would have banned Petrushka, who said the following (note the bolded text:)

Quote

I accept the definitional foundation of logic.

I also accept the findings of physics which make the concept of physical existence rather complicated. That just means that physical is not the same as the ideal, just as a physical circle is not an ideal circle.

I thought this was something generally agreed upon. I thought it was the foundation of Plato’s thought.

But to answer the specific question, in formal logic, the moon cannot both exist and not exist.

The question faced by physics is somewhat different.

Petrushka quite clearly answered the question "no", as Barry had wanted. It is just that he had the temerity to suggest that the world is far more nuanced and mysterious than small minds, like Barry, are able to comprehend. For the sin of showing that he was smarter than Barry, Petrushka was banned.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

11 ScottAndrews2 February 14, 2012 at 3:38 pm It’s been fun, but I’m not comfortable with this. While I agree that it’s absurd to argue that the moon can exist and not exist, I’m not comfortable debating someone if they are required to humiliate themselves by repeating a one-word answer. I understand the reason, but it feels too much like submission, like staring a dog in the eyes until it looks down. But I’ll keep reading all the excellent posts and comments.

Quote

Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Yes.

After he's done reading all the excellent posts and comments Barry allows, I wonder what Scott's going to do with the other 86400 seconds in the day?

I've had my differences with Scott, but I applaud him for this.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Barry: "I agree with much of Rand’s economic philosophy but little else about her thought appeals to me and much of it repels."

Gregory: "Ayn Rand’s ‘economic philosophy’ is pretty much one of the most depraved and dehumanizing ideas in the history of humanity! If you would wish to defend such a position, Barry, it is obvious that other aspects of your ‘philosophy’ should be openly called into question."

Barry: "Gregory does not seem to have read my comment about Rand closely. I think I made it fairly clear that I am repelled by almost everything she says. It is hard to know why he thinks we disagree on that point.

No doubt that quality is better than quantity in this respect. Even if that means we end up with no ID critics here because not one of them is capable of approaching the debate with any kind of serious rational or empirical basis to their contributions. That is, after all, the destiny of all universal truth.

I'm reluctant to suspect Barry of having thought out a long-term plan when all the evidence suggests a drunk monkey staggering around with a meat cleaver. But Doyle may be onto something here.

Perhaps the next few days will bring us:1. A final round of bannination;2. A announcement that only fellow-creationists meet UD's exalted standards of debate;3. Declaration of victory;4. Pack up, delete everything, and go home.

We could be living in the UD End Times.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

No doubt that quality is better than quantity in this respect. Even if that means we end up with no ID critics here because not one of them is capable of approaching the debate with any kind of serious rational or empirical basis to their contributions. That is, after all, the destiny of all universal truth.

I'm reluctant to suspect Barry of having thought out a long-term plan when all the evidence suggests a drunk monkey staggering around with a meat cleaver. But Doyle may be onto something here.

Perhaps the next few days will bring us:1. A final round of bannination;2. A announcement that only fellow-creationists meet UD's exalted standards of debate;3. Declaration of victory;4. Pack up, delete everything, and go home.

We could be living in the UD End Times.

You left out the demonic locusts with human faces.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

Quote

11 ScottAndrews2 February 14, 2012 at 3:38 pmCan the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Yes.

Quote

Barry Arrington February 14, 2012 at 3:41 pmScott, do you really mean to say that the moon can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Quote

Barry Arrington February 14, 2012 at 4:06 pmScott, we will have to agree to disagree.

Edited for moar truthiness.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

No doubt that quality is better than quantity in this respect. Even if that means we end up with no ID critics here because not one of them is capable of approaching the debate with any kind of serious rational or empirical basis to their contributions. That is, after all, the destiny of all universal truth.

Chris Doyle is no doubt flush with his winnings from the un-aired episode of Fear Factor.

Don't blame me if you Google this.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.